[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 114 (Friday, July 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9985-S9986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REFORM ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion 
on the Delaney clause in connection with S. 343, the regulatory reform 
bill, with which we are dealing right now. There is a provision in S. 
343 that would eliminate the Delaney clause ``zero-cancer risk'' 
criterion and replace it with a ``negligible risk'' criterion when 
determining the maximum permissible levels of pesticide residues on 
foods.
  The Delaney clause, a provision contained in section 409 of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1958 states that no additive 
will ``be deemed safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by 
man or animal. . . .''
  The intention of this law is admirable: To prevent cancer-causing 
agents from entering our food supply. I do not disagree with this 
intent, and I am sure that no one else does in this body either. The 
problem, however, is that in 1958 when the Delaney clause was passed, 
scientists could not measure additives in parts per billion or parts 
per quintillion, as they can today. In 1958, scientists could only 
detect cancer-causing additives in parts per thousands--concentrations 
that, indeed, often posed legitimate health risks to many Americans.
  This 37-year-old Federal law establishing a ``zero risk'' level for 
pesticide residues in processed food is outdated and unnecessary and 
has adverse impacts on almost every farmer in the United States.
  In my own State of Washington, more than 200 minor crops are affected 
by the Delaney clause. Since 1988, our farmers have lost nearly half of 
all pesticides registered for agricultural use and are currently faced 
with a shortage of agricultural pesticides because the cost of 
registration and reregistration is so high.
  For example, about 2.6 million acres of crops in the United States 
rely on Propargite. Propargite, a common pesticide used for mite 
control, is absolutely necessary to combat mites that feed on apples, 
grapes, hops, mint, potatoes, alfalfa seeds, and many other crops that 
are grown not only in my State but in other States as well.
  The potential impacts of a Propargite cancellation would be 
detrimental to agricultural producers in States like California, Idaho, 
Oregon, and my own State of Washington where crops grown on smaller 
numbers of acres, like these, are important to the economy.
  These potential impacts could cost our farmers hundreds of millions 
of dollars and would not only unnecessarily increase the price of our 
food but may well jeopardize food safety itself.
  Further, I have always been an advocate for safe, affordable, and 
abundant foods. Let me be clear, safety for foods will not be 
threatened because of this provision in S. 343. The specific provision 
only replaces the ``zero-cancer-risk'' criterion and replaces it with a 
negligible risk criterion. This ``negligible risk'' standard will give 
the Federal Government the flexibility it needs to permit our farmers 
to use newer and safer pesticides when they do not provide any 
significant risk to our foods. The status quo, however, is a threat to 
our farmers because present technology can measure these commodities in 
amounts so small as not to have any real impact, other than to bar the 
use of particular pesticides.
  As the Senate prepares to pass legislation that will move us toward a 
balanced budget in the year 2002, we must make tough choices. In light 
of reducing price support programs, I believe we should also work 
extremely hard to eliminate outdated and burdensome regulations that 
are placed on our farmers, among others. The Delaney clause is such an 
example of such an unnecessary regulation, and I am convinced that the 
Senate should pass legislation that will reduce regulatory burdens that 
farmers across this country face every day with no true, valid social 
purpose.
  As I travel around my own State, I have listened closely to the 
comments, suggestions, and concerns of my State's agricultural 
community. Their message is clear: Reduce the regulatory burdens that 
restrict our ability to do what we do best--provide healthy, safe, 
affordable, and abundant food. As Members of Congress, we should do all 
we can to provide that relief for those who carry out this important 
and very vital task.
  In summary, the science that drove the intent of the Delaney clause 
37 years ago is outdated. With today's technology and science, it is 
right--not only right but necessary--to revise and to revisit that law 
passed in 1958 and put a new one in its place that will meet its goals 
and, at the same time, save the ability of our farmers to produce food 
accurately and well. 

[[Page S9986]]

  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are prepared to lay down--at least the 
other side is prepared to lay down--the Glenn-Chafee amendment. So I 
ask unanimous consent that the pending business be temporarily set 
aside so that can occur and we can at least begin preliminarily to 
debate on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________